An Original 35mm 1933 Print of KING KONG has been discovered... what this means?

Hey folks, Harry here and in the past few weeks, just how bad the situation is regarding showable 35mm prints of great films has been underlined for me. In trying to program this year's BUTT-NUMB-A-THON, I had a specific mission in mind for this year's fest. Moreso, than in any other BNAT's history. As I usually do, I have the Drafthouse team a list of films to find. Only to find most of the titles... had no prints that were attainable by a theater with the highest archival rating you can get... which allows the Drafthouse to screen films from the great archives... and that's when we started having to call film print collectors to see, "Have you ever heard of a 35mm print of....?" One such inquiry was met with a, "Wow... no." And the person I was asking was one of the foremost collectors of the genre in question, that this film is like in the top 5 of the geekiest sub-genre of this awesome genre... But, yeah. Nope. We found a 16mm print, and I'm still hopeful of locating at 35mm print... but it is hard.
Then you have a film like KING KONG. How on Earth could it even vaguely be hard to find an original, pre-code - edited print of KING KONG? It was & remains one of the highest grossing films of all time, in adjusted dollars & pure admissions. But, censorship came down upon the film. Prints were edited and destroyed. KONG became too radical, too hard for the times it was made for.
Now, the version of KING KONG on BluRay, from everything I know is a complete film. And the print is immaculate. And the 35mm print that the BluRay was taken from is even better. BUT - now there's a newly found print. This will not have the lost Spider & Lizard canyon scene in it, at least probably it won't. That would be mind boggling, but was never in any prints that my friends that were alive at the initial release of KING KONG in 1933, have ever told me. That Ray Harryhausen has never seen this scene, underlines how lost it really is.
But for now, news like this gets me giddy, because until the print screens - we don't know how different it could be. But it is news worth celebrating.
Click here to read about the original 1933 KING KONG print being found.

This post just illustrated how badly you need an editor, Harry. Seriously - it's getting to where I only read your posts to challenge myself with the puzzle that is your writing. Ease up on the ellipses and dashes, have a purpose to your writing, and then have someone else read it to proof it. Seriously, Big Guy, it's getting worse over time.

...move to the friendly confines of North Hollywood and establish an enclave for ape-porn producers. Lotsa coke scenes and opposable thumb up the butt shots. They could call it "Monkey Grinder: You just messed with the wrong fucking hominidae."

Really would be something if there's footage not seen for many decades on that bitch.<P>Off topic, slightly: With some time passed, when I look back at Jackson's "Kong," I think how much he really didn't get the central relationship right at all. Great stuff in there, but it just doesn't come close to the original.

It's an original 1933 35mm print of King King, I'm sceptical. BUT, seeing as it has been almost 80 years since the film was released, it's possible that there could be one or two unedited scenes, that no-one remembers. Just like the Chaplin film discovered recently, uncovered gems <p>
But surely the Spider Pit sequence was scrapped prior to the films initial distribution?

"It was & remains one of the highest grossing films of all time, in adjusted dollars & pure admissions. But, censorship came down upon the film. Prints were edited and destroyed. KONG became too radical, too hard for the times it was made for.'
None of this is even remotely true

It's not on any lists because no one has the actual figures, just approximate. It did break all records at the time so even though we might not have any specific numbers, it probably would stack up amongst the highest grossing films adjusting for inflation.
Here's a story that mentions it made $2 million at the box office. I imagine adjusted for inflation from 1933, 2 mill is a whole lot in today's dollars.
http://blog.moviefone.com/2010/10/05/shelf-life-king-kong-1933/

THAT is like Geek buried treasure, and I'm sure there were rumors posted right here about it some time last year. But, in the meantime - any pristine print of Kong is Geek bullion.
I remember the current print out on DVD being found, previously, we had the pussy Kong that the censors had cut to ribbons - at ;east the current print depicts him more as a wild animal, stomping and grinding his heel on hapless natives. Very, very graphic for its time.
But if they ever find that spider/lizard sequence - I'll die a happy man. (As long as I've seen it before kicking the proverbial bucket, of course)

the old one looks shit, the ape moves all jerky and the acting is fucking appalling. At least in Jacksons the ape isn`t all jerky and it doesnt look shit - but he managed to capture the fucktard acting chops of the original perfectly.

I mean I guess it gives you some background of how difficult it is to PURPOSELY find an old print, not to mention the ridiculous odds of finding one accidentally. I was expecting Harry to relate his experience/5 paragraph anecdote of seeing King Kong for the first time. Instead this plug for BNAT + some vague teasing.

Fucking Universal. If I had found the film and all they were going to do was waive the 'late' fees in exchange for the movie, I'd have rung them back and said I was mistaken and I hadn't found it and then sold it to someone else.

KING KONG was censored heavily in scenes and there was great concern in showing the film to kids during its times. To give you an idea of how censorship was back then both of Warner Brothers' sensational 1931 gangster films, LITTLE CAESAR and THE PUBLIC ENEMY, opened to great reviews and business but after the Hays office established the PCA in 1934 all films screened had to receive a MPPDA seal of approval and films like LITTLE CAESAR and THE PUBLIC ENEMY were yanked from release for a couple of decades until the early '50s. KING KONG suffered from having key scenes cut to meet the MPPDA seal of approval.

You need to visit the STANFORD THEATRE near my home in Palo Alto, CA. It is one of the last grand theaters in America today! <p>www.stanfordtheatre.com</p> This week, my wife and I will be viewing THE GHOST AND MRS. MUIR. If memory serves me, I think that they played KING KONG at one point.

You mean the theatre, Stanford University, the fact that we are the heart of the Silicon Valley and home to HP, Sun Microsystems, Cisco, Facebook and a slew of other tech companies? <p>Of course, our taxes and cost of living are unbelievably high due to the liberal politicians and massive government "nanny state" interference here. </p> But, yeah, the STANFORD THEATRE is great -- and is located just a few blocks from my home on historic University Ave. in downtown Palo Alto.

... Or at the very least a spell of dizziness and acute nausea. Holy shit. Even the HEADLINE doesn't make sense. The rest of the article is a garble of shit. "But yeah, nope"?!?! <p> <p> Wacky thing is - search on here for some of Harry's old stuff. Phantom Menace review, for the sake of argument. <p> <p> Still full of off-on-tangent paragraphs, rarely on point, often juvenile and ill-thought-out... but I swear, once upon a time, Harry could write in real sentences, with paragraphs and punctuation. Fuck knows what happened.

I had to re-read each stretch to understand what he was trying to say. The first sentence(if you can call it one)was retarded. You know what? The whole thing was quite badly and lazily written. Whatever. I like the site anyway, but holy shit, for someone to call this kind of stuff actual reporting, is like a 14 year old with FAS trying to figure out how to explain why his eyes are so droopy and why for the last 13 years he has no skin left on his cock.

<P>is a nice place. First job out of college was there. But it's hardly the "heart" of Silicon Valley.</P>
<P>As for California, the Cost of Living varies place to place. While higher in the Bay Area, it is lower to the East in the Central Valley (with the possible exception of Sacramento).</P>
<P>If liberal politicians are to blame, it is because they did the bidding of developers and allowed a lot of development to take place in a relatively confined area In other words, they were acting like Republicans.</P>

Harry not the movie theater in question nor the copyright holders are in on any conspiracy
Im a king kong buff. I had loaned my special edition dvd to a teacher 2 years ago. yesterday he gave it back to me.
Being in a king Kong mood, I started reading on IMDB about it...
saw a post linking to that article.... forwarded it to harry via facebook
almost exactly an hour later this article showed up on AICN
Harry is also a Kong buff and needs stuff to fill his page
THAT is where it came from!

You were surely drunk while writing this, but it's cool. There is something endearing about the fact that you have no clue how to use ellipses or commas. <p>
Seriously, I'm not trolling. It's mildly heart-warming.

...not know that the more popular a film was, the HARDER it is to find a good print? They get rereleased and re-rereleased until they look like shit. It's a miracle any prints survived censorship because they would have been needed to play somewhere. Back in the days before huge simul-releases the same print would have travelled from town to town to town and been through many different hands and machines.

I'm contantly amazed at how retarded some people can be. Wouldn't you think he would check with, say, the theatre owner before attempting to thow out his shit? Had he thrown it way I would have personally punched him in the face for being a moron.

The dumb fucker. Head over to Dark Horizons. (A movie NEWS site.) Zack Snyder wants to cast "skinny" British guy Matthew Goode. Actually if you Google Image the guy he's got a good Clark look and, beefed up, could pull of Supes. But Snyder wants him so he can pull off the weedy Clark persona, and isn't too fussed about his Superman bulk because, and I quote: <p> <p> "Snyder isn't concerned about that as he plans to render Superman's muscular body with CG animation, much like the way Ryan Reynolds' outfit is rendered in next year's "Green Lantern". <p> <p> Way to miss the fucking point Snyder. Superman doesn't GROW MUSCLES when he puts the suit on, for Christ's sake. <p> <p> Surely Nolan won't stand for THAT shit. <p> <p> P.S. It should be Routh. But this guy could well look the part actually. <p> <p> But fuck off Snyder. CGI Superman my ass.

i just read the darkhorizons article which was mentioned above, about the cgi superman and the brit who is going to play supes.i hope in everything that is holy,that it is a hoax and nothing else,and that even if it the news are valid,i hope in God's name that Nolan is not going to accept this shit !!!<br />
check it out guys:<br />
<p>http://bit.ly/dMjHUt<br />
<br />
<p>HOLY MOTHER OF GOD !!!!!!!!!!!!!

I mean holy fuck. Way to fuck it up. CGI SUPERMAN!!!???? I'm not against this dude playing Superman, a quick blast of Google Images is enough to sell me on his look - but .... I'll say it again .... CGI SUPERMAN. <P> <P> The whole POINT of the Supes/Clark duality is that he disguises himself with nothing but glasses, an ill-fitting suit and a put-on meek and mild act. It takes a good actor to pull that off. NOT FUCKING CGI.

check it out: http://bit.ly/hzYPTx<br />
<p> but a CGI Superman? what the fuck?? dont they have steroids in Hoywood to muscle him up before the shooting starts? Snyder made Butler into a beast in 6 months for his 300 movie,is it so hard to do the same with this dude? <br />
<p>after all Supes is not a bodybuilder,he is muscular but he belongs in the fitness category.wtf?

... to put the brakes on any CGI fuckwittery as soon as possible. <p> <p> I'm neither a Snyder hater or fanboy (300 was a cartoon; Watchmen was noble in its intentions and very well done for all its faults as an actual movie; Sucker Punch looks like a teenagers wank-fantasy and has no appeal to me at all) but I'm fast losing faith in Snyder's Superman - without a frame being shot. <p> <p> There's this -- and there's also the rumoured plot of Clark wrestling with the idea to become Superman until he has no choice. <p> <p> Anyone read JMS's "Superman: Earth One". Crap. Clark Kent does NOT skulk around feeling sorry for himself, wondering how to use his powers: he realises his destiny and, brought up to believe in the good of all people, fights for them, embracing his Kryptonian heritage and his new home at once. <p> <p> **Spoilers** Earth One had him mooching around resisting Ma Kent's urgings to use his powers for others, and forced to become Superman when it got "zapped" into his brain, just as earth comes under attack. Almost grudgingly. And screw that "avenge Krypton" nonsense. Superman doesn't seek revenge, for Christ's sakes.

.. exactly. For a start, it looked fake as fuck - the end shot up through the clouds was an embarrassment and left a sour taste right at the end. And as much as I liked Routh in the role (and really believe he should be given another go, it's not HIS fault the film was below par), it was a mistake to pad out the suit with fake muscles. <p> <p> Under Nolan's shepherding, they should be going the Reeve route. Cast this guy if they want to. Have him get ripped so he looks like a REAL Superman in that suit, and play Clark with the stoop, the dodgy clothes, the geeky glasses. <p> <p>> FUCKING C.G.I SUPERMAN.

"overkill, whatever over word you want scene that was just laughable. I mean, how could an island even support this type of life. Took"
Skull island was constantly sinking and growing smaller-causing the most condensed terrible evolution to take place. Read the history of skull island for a complete breakdown of the science behind the world. What? You thought that Jackson just mounted this gigantic undertaking without thinking about simple shit like that? He isn't Lucas ya know

When I say that Palo Alto is known as the "heart" of the Silicon Valley, it is probably because quite a bit of the tech development occurred here. Yahoo, Google, HP, Tesla, VMWare, Intuit, Sun Microsystems, PayPal, and many other companies either started here or were headquartered here at one time or another. Hell, even Apple's Steve Jobs lives here. In fact, Packard's Garage is known as the birthplace of the Silicon Valley.<p>The reason that the cost of living is so high in this community has a lot to do with the way that the city is regulated. There are no major apartment complexes in the city limits...and non-house dwellings are limited to two bedrooms (thus, prohibiting large families). There aren't any government projects in the town. </p><p> Plus, the city government takes active role in everyday policy. For instance, plastic bags were banned from grocery stores two years ago. The amount of grass, flowers and trees were restricted to half of your lawn last year. A "sit down" law was enacted to keep homeless beggars out last year. Businesses are highly regulated, and no moderate-to-large grocery stores (nothing over 20K feet) are granted permits. </p><p>Taxes and fees are high in the city due to certain regulations over business, energy and environmental policies adapted by the dyed-in-wool-liberal city council. Our zip code has an average home value well over $1Million for an average 3BR/2B home.</p><p>Even as intrusive as life might be, like you said, it is not all bad. We are well within reach of every surrounding area. The restrictions have kept out violent crime that seems rampant in the surrounding communities. Unfortunately, theft is high. I have had THREE bicycles stolen from the Stanford campus. :-( </p> <p>Moreover, the STANFORD THEATRE is probably the best classic theater that I have ever seen. It is located within walking distance of our home and the Stanford campus. There are typically four classic films shown per week at a cost of just $7 per showing. The popcorn and butter is real. The organ music is great. I have even seen George Lucas (or, at least, a guy that looked just like him) walking into the theater. Shirley Temple lives nearby and the manager said that she used to frequent films there quite a bit.</p> If anyone is in the Bay Area, this theater is worth your patronage!

I know it's rumour and gossip at this stage and I find it hard to believe that Nolan would ever go this route or allow a director to go this route. But it does sound like something Zak Snyder would do. I've been waiting the best part of my life for a decent Superman movie. If Snyder does go the CGI route with Superman I'm going to get on a plane, visit Mr Snyder and cut is balls out with a rusty spoon. We'll see if he can CGI his balls back.

I come to this site because I love movies...god knows that doesn't make sense. But don't talk down to me. If an original print of King Kong was found with possible new footage I would know "what it means", and I would never need you too tell me. Also your headline is bullshit & missleading.

Precisely. How can he be skinny Clark Kent and built Superman? How does that work? It doesn't. It's an abortion of an idea. If this turns out to be true, Superman geeks the world over will be very very disappointed. Anyone who knows and loves Superman will, I think agree. What's going to do? Inflate like a fucking balloon?

One of the great moments in film geek history is when the IMMORTAL Chris Reeve, as mild mannered Mr Kent takes his glasses off for the first time in Superman. Im not sure the scene, in Niagra Falls? He takes off the glasses and BECOMES Superman in a mtter of seconds...just so good

<P>Yeah, a lot of history (well, recent, tech history) is in this area. Down the street from Loral, is the building where Fairchild produced the first commercially "practicable" integrated circuit. I stumbled across the historical marker many years ago. And, farther down San Antonio Road, is the building that housed William Shockley's lab. Lot of neat things have and continue to happen here.</P>
<P>As for the Palo Alto ordinances that you have mentioned, I suspect that many of them were passed to preserve the Palo Alto "way of life". That could be viewed as a "classically conservative" outlook.</P>
<P>I will, at some point, take the time to go to the Stanford Theatre.</P>
<P>Thanks for the post.</P>